Given the results of your research, have you demonstrated the existence of the soul?Sylvie Déthiollaz: Here, we want to be perfectly clear and honest: we have not scientifically proven anything....Claude Charles Fourrier: First, we must remember that science, absolute proof does not exist. To the question “have we revealed the existence of the soul”, one can answer objectively no. Subjectively, then, each one can bring his own interpretation to the results that we present....

Halil wrote:I found a new OBE which sounds very compelling. Apparently this man was able to identify targets during his OBE

They sealed images in envelopes. That was the first give away it was more likely a stage magic trick.

The reason you can see images is because your eyes focus radiating light waves, from objects, onto the rods & cones at the back of your eyes. If you were somehow projecting your non-physical "spirit thingee" through walls and envelopes, that indicates the spirit does not interact with physical things, however the moment the person having the OBE claims to see images, that means he is interacting with physical things (focusing photons) . Therefore this experiment really doesn't make any sense and simply adds more confused results.

It is inconclusive, the phenomena has not been thoroughly tested. Henrik Ehrsson himself said he was not interested in out of body so his experiments was floored from the outset. You have to have at least an interest in what you are investigating for any conclusive evidence to come out of it. His lack of interest presupposed an hidden agenda. Maybe he wanted to get home for his pie and chips and his lap dog. Beside out of body and the study of it is not accepted by orthodox segments of our culture, all hypotheses and studies on the subject point to this obvious fact.

Confidencia wrote: Henrik Ehrsson himself said he was not interested in out of body so his experiments was floored from the outset. You have to have at least an interest in what you are investigating for any conclusive evidence to come out of it. His lack of interest presupposed an hidden agenda. Maybe he wanted to get home for his pie and chips and his lap dog.

Well - sort of. But iffy. Does it REALLY make a difference? I can't, in all honesty, make the connection between 'lack of interest' and 'hidden agenda'. Would you care to expand upon your argument?

Matthew Ellard wrote:Really? You seem totally unaware that scientists have already established a hypothesis for why people think they experience OBEs, tested that hypothesis and concluded the hypothesis is correct. http://content.time.com/time/health/art ... 32,00.htmlYou seem to be stuck in the 1960s.

Confidencia wrote:It is inconclusive, the phenomena has not been thoroughly tested.

Yes it has, The phenomena that people feel as though they have had a fuzzy out of body experience has undergone through the scientific method. Hypotheses established, repeatable experiments performed and result analysed. Science has now explained the OBE experience.

You are pretending there is some sort of paranormal OBE where magical spirits somehow leave the body and have journeys, seeing things and hearing things. Let me show you how silly you are

I want you to write down and define the nature of this magical spirit thing.Can it float through walls? ( must not interact with the physical world)Can it see things? ( receive photons and thus must interact with the physical world) Can it see things in closed envelopes? ( has new "see in the dark" powers)

I already know, you won't be able to do this. There are too many conflicting claims. In fact you won't be able to define your magical spirit at all.

Soooooo..... You are posting on a science forum. What do you think is more probable to us? A defined hypothesis that explains why people think they have OBES or your claim that you can't even define what you are claiming?

Confidencia wrote: Henrik Ehrsson himself said he was not interested in out of body so his experiments was floored from the outset. You have to have at least an interest in what you are investigating for any conclusive evidence to come out of it. His lack of interest presupposed an hidden agenda. Maybe he wanted to get home for his pie and chips and his lap dog.

Well - sort of. But iffy. Does it REALLY make a difference? I can't, in all honesty, make the connection between 'lack of interest' and 'hidden agenda'. Would you care to expand upon your argument?

Of course it does. You know out of your own experience that if you've lost something and you go looking for it half heartedly the chances are you will not find it. Henrik was not really interested in finding evidence for out of body but rather evidence against it.

Confidencia wrote: Henrik Ehrsson himself said he was not interested in out of body so his experiments was floored from the outset. You have to have at least an interest in what you are investigating for any conclusive evidence to come out of it. His lack of interest presupposed an hidden agenda. Maybe he wanted to get home for his pie and chips and his lap dog.

Well - sort of. But iffy. Does it REALLY make a difference? I can't, in all honesty, make the connection between 'lack of interest' and 'hidden agenda'. Would you care to expand upon your argument?

The only difference it should make is if the person is actually interested in the outcome enough to bias it one way or the other. Lack of interest in finding one particular outcome is usually a good thing. Most people can't manage it, even if they think they can. That's why many of the best studies use the double-blind research design.

Confidencia wrote: Henrik Ehrsson himself said he was not interested in out of body so his experiments was floored from the outset. You have to have at least an interest in what you are investigating for any conclusive evidence to come out of it. His lack of interest presupposed an hidden agenda. Maybe he wanted to get home for his pie and chips and his lap dog.

Well - sort of. But iffy. Does it REALLY make a difference? I can't, in all honesty, make the connection between 'lack of interest' and 'hidden agenda'. Would you care to expand upon your argument?

The only difference it should make is if the person is actually interested in the outcome enough to bias it one way or the other. Lack of interest in finding one particular outcome is usually a good thing. Most people can't manage it, even if they think they can. That's why many of the best studies use the double-blind research design.

The lack of interest in finding one particular outcome is not usually but always a good thing, as you say it avoids bias. But not in the testing and the application of investigation. In this area you must be absolutely focused.

Confidencia wrote: Henrik Ehrsson himself said he was not interested in out of body so his experiments was floored from the outset. You have to have at least an interest in what you are investigating for any conclusive evidence to come out of it. His lack of interest presupposed an hidden agenda. Maybe he wanted to get home for his pie and chips and his lap dog.

Well - sort of. But iffy. Does it REALLY make a difference? I can't, in all honesty, make the connection between 'lack of interest' and 'hidden agenda'. Would you care to expand upon your argument?

The only difference it should make is if the person is actually interested in the outcome enough to bias it one way or the other. Lack of interest in finding one particular outcome is usually a good thing. Most people can't manage it, even if they think they can. That's why many of the best studies use the double-blind research design.

The lack of interest in finding one particular outcome is not usually but always a good thing, as you say it avoids bias. But not in the testing and the application of investigation. In this area you must be absolutely focused.

Confidencia wrote: Henrik Ehrsson himself said he was not interested in out of body so his experiments was floored from the outset. You have to have at least an interest in what you are investigating for any conclusive evidence to come out of it. His lack of interest presupposed an hidden agenda. Maybe he wanted to get home for his pie and chips and his lap dog.

Well - sort of. But iffy. Does it REALLY make a difference? I can't, in all honesty, make the connection between 'lack of interest' and 'hidden agenda'. Would you care to expand upon your argument?

The only difference it should make is if the person is actually interested in the outcome enough to bias it one way or the other. Lack of interest in finding one particular outcome is usually a good thing. Most people can't manage it, even if they think they can. That's why many of the best studies use the double-blind research design.

The lack of interest in finding one particular outcome is not usually but always a good thing, as you say it avoids bias. But not in the testing and the application of investigation. In this area you must be absolutely focused.

Confidencia wrote: Henrik Ehrsson himself said he was not interested in out of body so his experiments was floored from the outset. You have to have at least an interest in what you are investigating for any conclusive evidence to come out of it. His lack of interest presupposed an hidden agenda. Maybe he wanted to get home for his pie and chips and his lap dog.

Well - sort of. But iffy. Does it REALLY make a difference? I can't, in all honesty, make the connection between 'lack of interest' and 'hidden agenda'. Would you care to expand upon your argument?

The only difference it should make is if the person is actually interested in the outcome enough to bias it one way or the other. Lack of interest in finding one particular outcome is usually a good thing. Most people can't manage it, even if they think they can. That's why many of the best studies use the double-blind research design.

The lack of interest in finding one particular outcome is not usually but always a good thing, as you say it avoids bias. But not in the testing and the application of investigation. In this area you must be absolutely focused.

I said "usually" to avoid an argument about whether or not it's always a good thing. Little did I know you would agree with me that it's always a good thing to lack interest on the one hand, but then disagree with me on the other. Perhaps I'm simply unaware of how you define the terms "hidden agenda" and "bias"?

No, Confidencia - you're actually unaware (or are pretending to be) of what people actually write - as opposed to what you want them to have written. Stop quibbling and hair-splitting. Of all people, Gord has no bias unless it a leaning towards good practice and seeking the truth. I put those together intentionally, as you'll never approach the second without the first.Try again - what Gord was actually pointing out was that a lack of interest IN FINDING ONE PARTICULAR OUTCOME is usually a good thing (I would have put it more strongly). If you insist on a) putting words into the mouths of others and b) omitting words from the mouths of others then this discussion is going to hit the skids very quickly.

Confidencia wrote:If you think consciousness is a product of the brain then you might have difficulty understanding the concept of OBE or waking sleep.

So whose product is consciousness? Also if the brain is not responsible for it then why after brain damage people loose their consciousness or have changes in personality? Also there are many questions to be asked if we have a soul like consciousness like in religion or myths. Do animals have consciousness like we do? Where did consciousness come from before my brain? Where does it go when I sleep, why cannot I remember my time in my mothers womb etc. there are countless of questions to be asked and as my philosophy teacher taught us if there are too many questions rising in a solution then there is a very small chance that this solution to that question is right. Also by waking sleep do you mean sleep paralysis? If yes this was explained and no magic is needed.

Confidencia wrote:It is inconclusive, the phenomena has not been thoroughly tested.

First not true. Second this is the answer I get from many people who believe in this stuff. You claim this because it will be tested when you get the result you desire and that is from your posts that it proves a afterlife.

Its not true it was not tested take for example the Ales Tanous or Charles Tart with his Miss Z OBE experience which ended as a failure and had many red flags which are repeated many times by proponents of paranormal OBEs:

OBE experiment[edit]In 1968, Tart conducted an OBE experiment with a subject known as Miss Z for four nights in his sleep laboratory.[4] Miss Z was attached to an EEG machine and a five-digit code was placed on a shelf above her bed. She did not claim to see the number on the first three nights but on the fourth gave the number correctly.[5][6]

During the experiment Tart monitored the equipment in the next room, behind an observation window, however, he admitted he had occasionally dozed during the night.[7] The psychologists Leonard Zusne and Warren Jones have written that the possibility of the subject having obtained the number through ordinary sensory means was not ruled out during the experiment. For example when light fell on the code it was reflected from the surface of a clock located on the wall above the shelf. The subject was not constantly observed and it was also suggested she may have read the number when she was being attached to the EEG machine.[5] According to the magician Milbourne Christopher "If she had held a mirror with a handle in her right hand, by tilting the mirror and looking up she could have seen a reflection of the paper on the shelf... The woman had not been searched prior to the experiment, nor had an observer been in the sleep chamber with her — precautions that should have been taken."[7]

The psychologist James Alcock criticized the experiment for inadequate controls and questioned why the subject was not visually monitored by a video camera.[8] Martin Gardner has written the experiment was not evidence for an OBE and suggested that whilst Tart was "snoring behind the window, Miss Z simply stood up in bed, without detaching the electrodes, and peeked."[9] Susan Blackmore wrote "If Miss Z had tried to climb up, the brain-wave record would have showed a pattern of interference. And that was exactly what it did show."[10]

The experiment was not repeated at the laboratory, Tart wrote this was because Miss Z moved from the area where the laboratory was located.[11]

Also take a look on Dr. Sam Parnia who did the same but had negative results so please do not tell me its was not tested when parapsychology was on its high then this was tested many times with mixed results but when the sceptics came and took a more colder approach they seen the errors which made these paranormal things happen.

Confidencia wrote:There is no fixed definition, it is a subjective experience. If you want to define it try it yourself.

So, here you are on a science forum, claiming science isn't researching something that you can't even describe.

Try a religious forum.

A subjective experience does not lend itself to definition. You can only define experience relatively. You acknowledge this yourself by suggesting I go to a religious forum. What use is science or religion when only the absolute will do? The absolute must be experienced it cannot be discussed, only in terms of negation.

Confidencia wrote:If you think consciousness is a product of the brain then you might have difficulty understanding the concept of OBE or waking sleep.

So whose product is consciousness? Also if the brain is not responsible for it then why after brain damage people loose their consciousness or have changes in personality? Also there are many questions to be asked if we have a soul like consciousness like in religion or myths. Do animals have consciousness like we do? Where did consciousness come from before my brain? Where does it go when I sleep, why cannot I remember my time in my mothers womb etc. there are countless of questions to be asked and as my philosophy teacher taught us if there are too many questions rising in a solution then there is a very small chance that this solution to that question is right. Also by waking sleep do you mean sleep paralysis? If yes this was explained and no magic is needed.

First you must understand one thing, you are only the observer. You cannot observe the observer only the observation and the object of observation

Once you've understood this you should think of consciousness as a recorder and the mind its register and the brain its regulator. And you will have a better understanding of how consciousness functions. The mind arise in the consciousness and registers information so that the brain can hard wire it as a programmed function.

Nobody and nothing we know externally produces this consciousness, yet it is at the root of everything sensate. It came from nowhere and it goes nowhere, so it is always the case. From the brains perspective a loss of this consciousness is merely a lapse in memory, the consciousness has not gone anywhere. It is always the case.

The brain function via memory, out of this memory patterns are created. When the brain partially shuts down or is in trauma these patterns are temporarily or permanently suspended. In the case of a trauma where the structure of the brain has been compromised the brain attempts to repairs itself. Where there is irretrievable brain damage the consciousness simply move out of that body and remains dormant for a while. From the perspective of consciousness if the tool is damage it cannot use it. The body is a tool of expression. Consciousness produces all forms fills them with life until they are exhausted. If you like you can call consciousness the soul since it is the major player in every events.

If you think about it it is only because we are governed by memory why the magicians and illusionists can do their tricks. The greatest illusionist is consciousness itself. You think you are here living an independent existence when really you are not. Modes of thought, ways of thinking, patterns of creation and destruction - their existence is rooted in memory. For instance, when you go to sleep at night you remember falling asleep but you don't remember the sleep why? Because you only know the memory pattern of going to sleep and waking up. As a person you are dependent on the memory patterns as part of your day to day functioning hence the reason why you ordinarily go blank when the brain partially shuts down as in sleep or swoon.

Again it is not as if the consciousness has gone anywhere. If you become aware that you are conscious and remain aware of your consciousness you will remember your sleep and enter that state of waking sleep or OBE. When I say waking sleep I do not mean paralysis I mean you are aware that you are sleeping. It is easily done, all you need do is eliminate the periods of inadvertence (your programming) during your waking hours (your day to day activity) and you will gradually reduce the periods of absent mindedness (your sleep) and you will become aware that you are sleeping. Not as in, "I remember I slept" but as an actual witness to your sleep, as in, "I am aware that I am asleep yet I am not".

During the time that you are awake (your day time) you are in a semi conscious state, the body is alert and fully functioning out of these memory patterns that have been hard wired into the brain. These patterns are like programs that run concurrently according to your environment and there derivatives - temperament and character which makes up your human nature. And since your environment is subject to change the brain constantly creates new pathways to accommodate these changes. Consciousness is at the root of all brain activity whether that be an insect, animal or human being and is also in constant change, this is reflect on the level of the brain.

So when you ask "where does consciousness go when I go to sleep?" I can only tell you it goes nowhere, it was, is and always will be the case - before and after your brain has long gone. When you come out of your sleep you are only remembering the state which you were in prior to your sleep. Consciousness needs a vehicle, when the vehicle breaks down the consciousness remain in a dormant stage until another vehicle becomes available. You have totally identified with this personality so much so that to talk of consciousness beyond or prior to the brain is unthinkable.

You ask. "Why do I not remember my time in the womb"? Because you were never in the womb. The body developed in the womb along with its brain. The womb was the bodies environment hence the reason it did not need a fully functional brain during the time it was there, it had no use for one. In the womb it is attached to a fully developed body with a fully functional brain through out the gestation period. When this body is born it immediately starts collecting data for itself from its new environment. As the body grows the mind develops and utilises this information to form an identity. This identity is what we know as the person or personality. It is the consciousness that mistakes this identity of a person for itself. As a person you only know a virtual reality you are blind to what is real because the memory patterns that forms this virtual reality obscures it. It is not the consciousness that is at fault but the conscious experience (this virtual reality) generated by the brain

This is way you can't trust conscious experience because it is rooted in memory. If you have to remember it then it is not real. You have to be aware that you are conscious to get the whole picture. To be conscious of awareness is only partial and based on memory. It is for this reason why I say it is inconclusive, you cannot effectively test a subjective experience objectively or an objective experience subjectively since they are both renditions of brain consciousness. You can only know it for yourself.

I am neither for or against OBE's all I'm saying as with all things and phenomenas they exist yet they do not. If you want to experience OBE or waking sleep you will, if you don't there is less chance that you will. This has nothing to do with belief but more in the nature of understanding. Be aware of your awareness that's all.

Last edited by Confidencia on Thu May 25, 2017 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Poodle wrote:No, Confidencia - you're actually unaware (or are pretending to be) of what people actually write - as opposed to what you want them to have written. Stop quibbling and hair-splitting. Of all people, Gord has no bias unless it a leaning towards good practice and seeking the truth.

What is the truth? A verbal definition, mental construct perhaps an anecdote?

Confidencia wrote: Henrik Ehrsson himself said he was not interested in out of body so his experiments was floored from the outset. You have to have at least an interest in what you are investigating for any conclusive evidence to come out of it. His lack of interest presupposed an hidden agenda. Maybe he wanted to get home for his pie and chips and his lap dog.

Well - sort of. But iffy. Does it REALLY make a difference? I can't, in all honesty, make the connection between 'lack of interest' and 'hidden agenda'. Would you care to expand upon your argument?

The only difference it should make is if the person is actually interested in the outcome enough to bias it one way or the other. Lack of interest in finding one particular outcome is usually a good thing. Most people can't manage it, even if they think they can. That's why many of the best studies use the double-blind research design.

The lack of interest in finding one particular outcome is not usually but always a good thing, as you say it avoids bias. But not in the testing and the application of investigation. In this area you must be absolutely focused.

I said "usually" to avoid an argument about whether or not it's always a good thing. Little did I know you would agree with me that it's always a good thing to lack interest on the one hand, but then disagree with me on the other. Perhaps I'm simply unaware of how you define the terms "hidden agenda" and "bias"?

Confidencia wrote: What is the truth? A verbal definition, mental construct perhaps an anecdote?

"The truth is what hits you in the nose when you think nothing is there." aka: predictions with consistent confirming results.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard wrote:So, here you are on a science forum, claiming science isn't researching something that you can't even describe. Try a religious forum.

Confidencia wrote:A subjective experience does not lend itself to definition.

Soooo.... you are complaining that science isn't researching something paranormal, that can't be defined and thus can't be researched by science? Doesn't that seem a little bit stupid as a complaint to you?

Confidencia wrote:I am neither for or against OBE's

Your subjective opinion doesn't matter. Other people have claimed they had the experience of out of body experiences. Scientists determined the common elements to these experiences and formulated working hypotheses. These hypotheses were subjected to repeatable scientific experiments and conclusions drawn.

You are way behind the timesWhat makes your comments so silly is that you are way behind the times. Science has already recognised that people do feel they have out of body experiences and has explained these experience with clarity. It is normal science.

You seem totally unaware about these developments and yet here you are claiming that some other sort of paranormal reason exists that you can't even define, let alone explain. The matter has already been dealt with and a scientific explanation already exists.

Confidencia wrote: What is the truth? A verbal definition, mental construct perhaps an anecdote?

"The truth is what hits you in the nose when you think nothing is there." aka: predictions with consistent confirming results.

Pain is something that can be anticipated and remembered. If the predictions are consistent with confirming results, how would you know that you have really been hit or that something is really there? Consistency implies memory and memory is a repeat of passed experiences

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?